Does it matter if Kinect works right?

[ZenfoldorVGI]

9009pc said:

ZenfoldorVGI said:

THAT is what the Kinect is. It's a new thing to grab the public-casual interest. It has games they can play. It is new and different. The specifics don't matter to them. They would never know the difference. To them, it's a toy. They are barely invested in it. To us, it's a way of life.

I think there is one reason why Kinect will eventually best Move. Move isn't a new thing meant to grab the public-casual interest. Move is a new version of an existing thing meant to improve upon the original.

this is where your whole argument fails imo. (edit: well not the argument just that I feel you are addressing the wrong problem) You, Microsoft and anyone else who is trying to promote Kinect for one reason or another either miss or ignore the one little fact that could make all the difference.

The fact that Kinect isn't original and is based on technology that has failed to deliver in the past. the problem with Kinect is not just the technical issues, but what it can actually do. if Microsoft can deliver on the games that they showed at e3 2009. if Microsoft can deliver an interface that is as natural and responsive as buttons, if Microsoft can get it's technology not just to enhance upon what its predecessor's have shown in the past but also overcome it's problems then I will accept that Kinect will win but from what was shown at e3 2010 this is not the case.

The technology can be hyped up to appear new and revolutionary but if it meets the same problems as it's predecessor'S and does not deliver on it's promises then the hype will only keep it going for so long. I hope Microsoft can pull this of because I loved the ps eye (ps3) and it's tech when it was released and nothing would please more in seeing this technology actual work the way Microsoft and Sony both demonstrated but I just don't see that happening :(

move has solved this problems by taking a step back and including the thing I and anyone who has interest in this technology was trying to get away from (but now seems to be where I was trying to get to), buttons. To me it makes a camera interface better than my wildest dreams could possible have came dreamt up.

it's on implementation where it matters most and we will have to wait for the releases to fully determine there fate, but I have and will enjoy learning what I can about them until then and after. 

We'll agree to disagree then. :)

I think that the technology, and the product itself doesn't matter in the slightest. I think that if the product delivers a new experience to casual consumers, no matter how great or terrible that experience may be, people will buy it. Especially if it's affordable, and if the software appeals to them. Microsoft is gearing its device to appear "new" to the vast majority of people, and its gearing its games and marketing towards casuals. The Playstation eye was and is a poorly marketed, poorly supported, and poorly implimented product. It was doomed to fail for all of those reasons. Kinect has none of those problems. The harware is excellently marketed, supported by 3rd parties, and completely integrated into the console dashboard.

Basically, I think that blaming the Playstation Eye's failure on its hardware and technology is rediculious. To the target audience for such devices, technology and graphics are not determining factors in the purchase. The basic premise of the eye and the kinect are sound for marketing purposes. What you are implying is that even if the Kinect did "work right" it wouldn't matter. I agree. It wouldn't matter one bit, however, if the machine doesn't "work right" it doesn't matter one bit either. The tech is not why this device will thrive or fail.

Also, I'm not trying to promote Kinect. In fact, I've done a pretty good job of buring it down in this thread, haven't I?